On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Keith Keller <kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You may want to check this out: >> >> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6087 >> >> My understanding is that "There is no side effect other than the load. >> There are not performance issues with the ailds behaving like this." >> Is this not the case ? > > As far as I can tell, it is. I actually prompted Dave's quoted comment > on the XFS list: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00594.html > > So this would be a low priority task for me (as well as a learning > exercise). If the patch were two lines I probably wouldn't bother. ;-) > It is 99.5% cosmetic, but I have noticed that the ''baseline'' load, > when there is no I/O, varies between 3 and 4, which makes it very > slightly more difficult to interpret the load. That is my main > motivation for bothering--if the baseline were more stable I probably > wouldn't bother. (With fewer XFS filesystems mounted the issue is > even less obvious.) I thought about applying the patch to the centosplus kernel but decided not to bother because it looked like a "non-issue". But it you think it's worth the fix, that can be done. It will be even better if you supply the actual patch for the CentOS kernel. Akemi